CWC: WRAP-UP FOR JUNE 23 TO JULY 3, 2009

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000411 SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (BROWN AND DENYER) NSC FOR LUTES WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/22/2019 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR JUNE 23 TO JULY 3, 2009 REF: A. THE HAGUE 410 ¶B. THE HAGUE 368 ¶C. THE HAGUE 402 ¶D. THE HAGUE 371 Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D) This is CWC-37-09 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Senior Washington experts Tom Hopkins (Principal Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs) and Bob Mikulak (ISN Director of Chemical and Biological Weapons Threat Reduction) visited The Hague June 23-25 to discuss the U.S. program for destroying its chemical weapons stockpile with a wide array of representatives from other national delegations and the OPCW Technical Secretariat. Refs A and B detail those conversations on demilitarization issues. This cable includes other topics that were discussed during those meetings, including the U.S. and UK recovered chemical weapons (CW) in Iraq and the selection of a new Director-General (DG). ¶2. (C) Delreps called on the OPCW Legal Advisor July 1 to discuss both the 2012 deadline issue and questions about the U.S. and UK recovered CW in Iraq (ref C). ¶3. (SBU) Executive Council Chairman Lomonaco (Mexico) chaired an informal meeting on the Verification Implementation Report (VIR) on June ¶24. Along with the expected discussion of comments on the report, the South African delegate inquired about information on the CW recovered by the U.S. and UK in Iraq. ¶4. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) completed its series of meetings with the current DG candidates, with Ambassador Benchaa Dani (Algeria) on June 23, and with Deputy Director- General (DDG) John Freeman (UK) on June 30. WEOG also nominated Nikolas Granger (U.S. Del) as facilitator for financial matters to succeed Yuki Kitigawa (Japan),and Mike Byers (Australia) as facilitator for the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism to succeed Annie Mari (France). Mari hosted a large luncheon on July 1 to discuss the future of the group. -------------- U.S. AND UK RECOVERED WEAPONS IN IRAQ -------------- ¶5. (C) Several delegations have recently returned to the issue of U.S. and UK recoveries of chemical weapons (CW) in Iraq. The South African delegation has been most active in pursuing this issue with the U.S. delegation. Newly-arrived Ambassador Peter Goosen went so far as to ask one of the candidates for Director General what he thought of the U.S. and UK actions and their compliance with the Convention. During a June 25 bilateral meeting with U.S. reps Mikulak and Hopkins, Goosen raised the issue, stating that there appeared to be a gap in the Convention that did not envision the recovery of chemical weapons in a combat situation. Claiming interest in preserving the Convention by establishing "rules of the game" for future situations, Goosen suggested the U.S. and UK would be best placed to provide input to such a discussion. Goosen was not specific about what kind of product he expected from any consideration of the recoveries, but made it clear he intends to raise it during the July 13 destruction informals and during the EC session. ¶6. (C) In the senior U.S. reps' meeting on June 24, Russian Ambassador Kirill Gevorgian also raised the issue of the recoveries. He noted that Russia still has questions about this and that, based on discussions with other delegations, he fully expects it will come up at the upcoming EC. Although Russia is likely to have instructions this time that simply state that Russia is still considering the issue, Gevorgian emphasized the importance of joint discussions to find a legal framework for U.S. and UK actions. -------------- -------------- OPCW LEGAL ADVISOR ON U.S. DEADLINE AND RCW IN IRAQ -------------- -------------- ¶7. (C) On July 1, Delreps met with OPCW Legal Advisor Santiago Onate to seek his views on 2012 and continued interest in U.S. and UK actions in Iraq. On 2012, Onate stated that non-compliance cannot be linked to the announcement recently made by the U.S., nor can such a judgment be based on future updates. A decision from CSP-11 established the final deadline for U.S. destruction as April ¶2012. From a legal standpoint, the U.S. has neither missed the deadline, nor has it requested further extension of its deadline, which the Convention does not provide for. The U.S. has simply provided projections of its current destruction program. Onate also referred to one of the operative paragraphs of the CSP decision that refers to the EC "taking necessary measures to document progress" -- into which category Onate said the detailed updates by the U.S. and the EC visits could fall. Referring to Albania's having just missed its final destruction deadline in 2007, Onate said that when the point is reached where the U.S. is no longer in compliance with the CSP decision, it will be up to the policy making organs to take or recommend measures to redress the situation. He also pointed out that one could make the case that not every situation not clearly envisaged by the CWC is necessarily non-compliance. ¶8. (C) Also on the recent U.S. announcement of its projected destruction schedule, Onate said he'd heard several delegations express concern about the currently scheduled gaps in activity between 2012 and 2014, and 2017 and 2019. ¶9. (C) On the recovered chemical weapons (RCW) in Iraq, Onate said that in his view all the TS has is a statement from the U.S. (in the form of a letter) about "suspected CW" and "munitions suspected to be filled with CW." The U.S. has not declared possession of CW in Iraq, and is therefore not bound to a defined process, which is why, he said, he advised against a declaration. If a State Party wants to challenge the U.S., they will need to assert that the U.S. possessed CW in an area under its jurisdiction or control and therefore should have declared the CW and agreed verification measures with the TS. Onate said that some could certainly argue that the U.S. had jurisdiction/control, as there would otherwise have Qjurisdiction/control, as there would otherwise have been no need for a formal return of sovereignty to Iraq. However, there is no direct obligation outlined in the CWC because the situation was not anticipated when the Convention was drafted. Therefore, in Onate's view, the TS is not in a position to advise on compliance and this matter could more appropriately be clarified between States Parties. ¶10. (C) When Delreps mentioned the South African suggestion to put in place procedures for future situations, Onate said that it is up to SPs to make proposals to address situations not covered by the Convention, but also that it is worth considering whether South Africa and others were really interested in an amendment process or simply keeping the issue alive for political reasons. -------------- SEARCH FOR THE NEXT DIRECTOR-GENERAL -------------- ¶11. (SBU) In the senior U.S. reps' meeting with EC Chairman Lomonaco (Mexico) on June 23, Mikulak inquired about the South African paper proposing procedures for the selection of the next DG. Lomonaco responded that some delegations, including Iran, were demanding discussion of all details; others want rules proposed so that they can agree or object. He said there was not time for consensus on the rules as well as on a person. When Lomonaco invited proposals for rules, everyone disappeared except South Africa. He believed the South African paper was intended for discussion, not their final proposal, but that their underlying goal was an open-ended working group. Lomonaco had consulted all the regional groups and heard a lot of opposition to the paper. The Asian group was divided; Iran expressed no opinion other than to insist on an open-ended working group, a demand from Pakistan as well. Lomonaco intended to propose a small group meeting to discuss the issue, key delegations as advisors to the Chairman. ¶12. (C) During Mikulak's and Hopkins' June 25 bilateral meeting, South African Ambassador Goosen made a concerted effort to convince U.S. reps of the value of South Africa's paper on procedures for selecting the next Director General. Goosen said that his delegation has already heard that "a candidate" (assumed to be Algerian Ambassador Benchaa Dani) planned to contest the selection process if he was not part of the final group of candidates. Goosen reminded U.S. reps that Dani is likely to have African Union and possibly Islamic Conference support that could easily turn a vote at the Conference of States Parties in his favor. He also expressed surprise that there were concerns about the paper, and said that his delegation was simply trying to clarify an area they believe lacks transparency. ¶13. (C) Goosen said that his recent conversation with EC Chair Lomonaco had not given him confidence in the Chair's ability to conduct a transparent, predictable process, and that this left the door open for candidates who may enjoy very little support to claim discrimination in the selection process. He added that South Africa intends to raise this during EC-57; Delrep later learned from South African delegate van Schalkwyk that his delegation expects to agree tQrocedures at the EC-57 session. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 23 -------------- ¶14. (SBU)Q June 23, WEOG met with the Algerian DG candidate, Ambassador Benchaa Dani. Unlike other candidates who presented prepared remarks on their vision for the OPCW and their qualifications to be Qvision for the OPCW and their qualifications to be DG, Dani instead tried to engage WEOG in a dialogue, and he posed more questions than answers. Dani cast himself as one of the few "inside" candidates and tried to use this as one of his biggest selling points. Multiple times Dani stressed that he knows all of the TS well, particularly the DG, DDG and all nine directors. ¶15. (SBU) During Dani's brief, 10-minute presentation, he mentioned a long list of challenges with little indication of how he would address them -- destruction deadlines, non- proliferation, assistance and protection, economic cooperation, the "Iraqi challenge," continuing the tradition of consensus. In response to a French question on where he would take the OPCW post-2012, he argued that the destruction deadline represents the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and thus it is important for all States Parties to respect it. He acknowledged that possessor states are doing their best to meet the deadline but believes that the issue is not for the DG to decide, but rather for States Parties. In response to a question from the Luxembourg Ambassador, Dani stated that nonproliferation poses the biggest challenge following destruction. Responding to other questions, Dani contended that the role of the DG is to build consensus, that a zero-nominal growth budget is the best option for all States Parties, that improved transparency measures will make it politically more acceptable to increase inspections of other chemical production facilities (OCPFs),and that more intervention by the international community is needed to bring about full universality of the CWC. On promoting economic and technological development, Dani maintained that the OPCW is not a development organization but also said that the issue should be steered away from the North-South divide that currently plagues it. --- VIR --- ¶16. (SBU) On June 24, EC Chairman Lomonaco chaired a consultation on the 2008 Verification Implementation Report (VIR),his first official meeting as EC Chairman. Anna Roccatello (Senior Policy Officer, Policy Review Branch) introduced the VIR, highlighting changes from the previous year's report. She also noted that the UK and the U.S. were the only countries to provide comments to the TS. After Roccatello's introduction, Lomonaco went through the VIR, section-by-section. There were relatively few interventions, with South African delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk speaking most often. He made a number of requests, including that the VIR be made available on CD-ROM and that the information in Table 3 on inspections per region be put in context by including the total number of inspectable sites per region. ¶17. (SBU) Van Schalkwyk's most notable intervention was a question on whether the TS had received any declarations in 2007 about CW destroyed by the U.S. or the UK in Iraq. The DG responded that the TS is still waiting for information from Iraq and that there was no information to include in the VIR. ¶18. (SBU) Following the consultation, Delrep met with Roccatello to go over previously-submitted U.S. comments. Roccatello indicated which comments and changes will be incorporated in the first corrigendum (to be released before EC-57); she said that the TS was open to discussing all other comments and changes for possible inclusion in a Qcomments and changes for possible inclusion in a second corrigendum, to be released later. -------------- MEETING WITH THE DG -------------- ¶19. (C) During their June 23 meeting with Director- General Pfirter to discuss the U.S. CW destruction schedule, U.S. Reps Mikulak and Hopkins also inquired about the DG's recent trip to Hong Kong. Pfirter said that the trip was very successful, with a cooperative atmosphere and broad participation by officials not only from customs and other related areas, but also police and intelligence. He noted that better oversight of Taiwan remains a significant goal; to this end he visited Macao last year and, in the course of the visit, stated to China's Deputy Director General of Non-Proliferation that the current lack of OPCW oversight of Taiwan is not acceptable. Pfirter also addressed the issue of North Korea, and later followed up with the Chinese Ambassador in The Hague to express concern that North Korea is somehow being given a special status and not seen as an appropriate goal for universality. Mikulak informed the DG that U.S. bilateral discussions with China on CWC implementation continue. ¶20. (SBU) On Iraq, the DG said that the TS has offered two possible dates in early July for an initial visit to Iraqi chemical weapons storage facilities. He added that the TS is waiting for Iraq to provide additional information, and that TS personnel would need to look to the U.S. for support with security while in Iraq. Pfirter also informed U.S. Reps that the "Goodwill Technical Visit" to Israel this week was going well, and that Egypt had accepted an offer for a similar visit. In closing, Pfirter requested that the U.S. make every effort to find a suitable applicant for the position of Industry Verification Branch Head (currently held by Amcit Bill Kane); the position is being re-advertised for 30 days (with a possibility of extending for a further 30 days) due to a lack of qualified applicants following the initial vacancy notice. -------------- WEOG - JUNE 30 -------------- ¶21. (SBU) On June 30, WEOG met with the final DG candidate, current DDG John Freeman (UK). Freeman gave a clear, structured presentation -- entirely without notes -- on why he should be the next DG, his outlook on priorities for the OPCW and views on the role of WEOG in the Organization. On the first point, he mentioned his deep concern for the CWC and multilateral arms control, citing his extensive pre-OPCW experience as well as his experience as DDG. ¶22. (SBU) Speaking at length on the priorities for the future of the OPCW, Freeman touched on a number of topics, summarized into three themes: commitment to the Convention, continuity and good management, and cooperation. On commitment to the Convention, he highlighted destruction, which he characterized as paramount, and non-proliferation, which he described as an increasingly core priority. On non-proliferation, Freeman said that the verification regime needs to be carefully calibrated to balance between being a sufficient deterrent without being excessively intrusive. The idea of balance, Freeman said, applies to the entire Convention, which needs to be viewed holistically. On continuity and good management, Qholistically. On continuity and good management, Freeman said that next DG will play a large role in maintaining the success story of the OPCW, which will require commitment and effort and will benefit from stability and predictability. On the last theme, Freeman described the time required to engender cooperation and said that the hard work required to achieve consensus is worth the effort because it results in authoritative outcomes. Freeman's final point in his presentation was that WEOG plays a vital role in the success of the OPCW. He observed that WEOG delegations -- individually and as a group -- have a great deal of authority, but with that comes responsibility. ¶23. (SBU) In response to a French question on his vision for handling 2012 and the challenge of States Parties missing the deadline, Freeman expressed a sentiment that he echoed repeatedly: the TS is servant to its masters, the States Parties. In this regard, he said that the TS role would be modest, with States Parties responsible for dealing with situation and agreeing on a solution. Freeman went on to observe that a member state would not be non-compliant until actually non-compliant, using the analogy of a murderer not being guilty of a crime until actually committing it. He concluded that until 2012, the Organization should focus on the Convention and encourage expeditious destruction. ¶24. (SBU) Swedish delegate Jan Lodding asked for more information on Freeman's view of the industry verification regime. Freeman replied that outreach to industry is vital to achieving a balanced regime; he also said that outreach to the scientific community is also needed for the verification regime to stay real and grow. Italian delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia asked if the structure of the TS and the resources available to it are sufficient to face future challenges; Freeman responded initially that member states do not seem to want to expand either the size or the budget of the TS. He continued, saying that in order to deliver efficiently, the TS has to prioritize and that re-prioritization allows shifting of resources to maintain core activities. Touching on tenure, Freeman observed no desire among member states to change status quo, and he said that knowledge transfer is key to successfully implementing any tenure policy. ¶25. (SBU) Irish delegate Michael Hurley asked how the TS can take forward attempts to achieve universality. Freeman responded that the TS knows nothing about non-member states and that it needs to be careful to focus on the right places and to constantly work and engage with member states. He reiterated that member states, supported by the TS, will play the most instrumental role in promoting universality. Delrep asked how long a zero-nominal growth (ZNG) budget can be sustained, to which Freeman responded that the TS does not seek ZNG but instead focuses on core objectives. He said that ZNG could be sustained -- though not aimlessly -- through constant reevaluation of the Organization's operation and by reprioritizing and reengineering processes. -------------- BRAINSTORMING FOR OEWG ON TERRORISM -------------- ¶26. (SBU) On July 1, the facilitator for the Open- ended Working Group (OEWG) on Terrorism, Annie Mari (France),hosted a brainstorming session to discuss ideas for the future of the group. Mari departs The Hague in August and will likely be succeeded in QThe Hague in August and will likely be succeeded in the chair by Mike Byers of Australia. In addition to Byers, participants in the luncheon included delegates from Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Poland, Japan, South Africa, Mexico, UK, Italy, Sweden (new EU president),U.S. Delrep and OPCW Ambassadors from Germany and the Netherlands. Unlike some of the private discussions of the OEWG, this gathering was polite and constructive, emphasizing common points of agreement including the reaffirmation of action against terrorism in the Second Review Conference, the limited mandate of the OPCW with regard to terrorism, the importance of OPCW's coordination with other counter-terrorism organizations including the UN, and the usefulness of exchanging views and best practices. Delegates noted a variety of ongoing activities, including the planned ASSISTX 3 exercise in Tunisia in 2010 with its links to Article X, the recent Australian workshop for Asian and Pacific nations, a proposed table-top exercise in Poland for response to a chemical disaster, and a proposed workshop in Tokyo on chemical safety and security for Asian nations (for which Japan is soliciting co-sponsors). When asked about the planned seminar in Algeria, the delegate replied that due to his recall to the capital, the planning had been put on hold but that his successor in The Hague would likely take it up. ¶27. (SBU) The Russian delegate asked pointedly who is responsible for safety and security of chemical industry. Others replied that it is clearly the responsibility of states under the Convention. The Iranian delegate echoed this point in highlighting the central role of governments on counter- terrorism, not multilateral organizations like the OPCW. The Japanese delegate cited his country's national paper for the Second Review Conference on chemical security, which discusses a number of ideas, some of which are relevant to counter- terrorism. The German Ambassador stated that his government did not want to expand the mandate of the OPCW or to support "mission creep" but that there is a useful role for exchange of views at the OPCW, given its range of expertise. U.S. Delrep noted the central role of private industry in the U.S. and other countries in providing security for their facilities and the importance of involving industry in discussion of best practices. The Polish delegate, facilitator for Article X, suggested closer coordination of the OEWG with the facilitations on Article X, XI and VII so as not to compete or overlap but to expand the range of discussion. ¶28. (SBU) Mari informed the group that she is drafting a national paper for EC-57 that will trace the history of the working group's activities and some ideas for the future. She thanked everyone for their participation in the brainstorming and wished her successor well. ¶29. (U) BEIK SENDS. FOSTER